Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

There is another way. You can take an infra red photgraph of the exhaust manifold section that has been coated. If (& only if) the coating works you will see a significantly lower temperature on the exhaust manifold section that is coated. If it doesn't work you won;t see any real difference between the coated & uncoated sections. Do a search - you should find it.

Hi,

Are you talking about this pic?

post-14974-1149148194.jpg

I think that the deduction from the pic - "it isn't noticeably cooler where the coating is, therefore the coating is

ineffective" - is hard to justify; you don't know what temps were_before_ the coating. What's the big lump?

To show a change in surface temps that is attributable (or not) to a coating, you need to measure

the surface temps on the object before the coating is applied; then repeat the measurement post-coating

while making no other changes in conditions. Unfortunately, that hasn't been done here.

Then you have to say "OK, I measured the surface temps, but what does this mean for HP?"

The only way to measure the HP difference attributable to a ceramic-coated manifold is to

actually measure the HP, then add the coating, and then re-measure.

Regards,

Saliya

Edited by saliya
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

From having a good look at that pic it seems the guyt that comment has got it wrong. The outer edge of the pipe on both sections is at about the same temperature, but the decrease in air temp within the coated section is much slower than that in the uncoated section. (The gradients in the graph are different, the gradient in the coated section is lower therefore less temp drop than the uncoated section with a larger gradient).

Conclusion: That coating keeps more heat in the exhaust air than with uncoated mild steel.

And there's no way they are "surface" temps - if they were you expect purple colour all the way across - its more like a cross section or a sum of all the heat from that part of the pipe.

At the risk of starting WW3....

The 'guy" in question is a mate of mine, a bloke that I happened to sit next to for four years whilst studying mechanical engineering at uni. I say this only to pre-empt any claims that the photo is some random down load from the net.

The photo shows the dump pipe on a turbo charged 12A rotary.

The photo is of the surface of the pipe.

The discontinuity is the flange on the exhaust.

The section downstream of the flange is uncoated.

The comment attached to the photo is correct, ie the coating, if working, should substantially lower the surface temperature of the pipe on the sections that have been coated. Clearly it hasn't and it follows that the coating is not having any measureable effect.

Edited by djr81
At the risk of starting WW3....

Hi,

Boom!!! :P:) (that's tongue-in-cheek, by the way ;))

The 'guy" in question is a mate of mine, a bloke that I happened to sit next to for four years whilst studying mechanical engineering at uni. I say this only to pre-empt any claims that the photo is some random down load from the net.

The photo shows the dump pipe on a turbo charged 12A rotary.

The photo is of the surface of the pipe.

The discontinuity is the flange on the exhaust.

The section downstream of the flange is uncoated.

Thanks for the clarification; it's not apparent from the photo.

The comment attached to the photo is correct, ie the coating, if working, should substantially lower the surface temperature of the pipe on the sections that have been coated. Clearly it hasn't and it follows that the coating is not having any measureable effect.

This logic is erroneous. It can't be asserted that the 'after' is no different to the 'before' without a 'before'

This is because you don't know what the surface temp of the coated surface would have been without the

coating (under the same conditions)... the surface temps of those sections might be dramatically lowered

by the coat. Maybe they were 5000deg higher :( Is this very unlikely? Of course. Is it impossible? No.

The hypothesis relies on the assumption that the temperature drop on the surface will be the same

right-to-left without the coat. And that therefore, as the temperature drop is similar to the assumed

conditions with the coat, the coat is useless. This could very well be true - but it also might not be.

Without a 'before' pic, we don't know this.

Please bear in mind, I'm not saying that coatings work (or that they don't). I'm saying that without the control

it's unfair to draw any conclusion (positive or negative).

Regards,

Saliya

Hi,

Boom!!! :D:worship: (that's tongue-in-cheek, by the way :))

Thanks for the clarification; it's not apparent from the photo.

This logic is erroneous. It can't be asserted that the 'after' is no different to the 'before' without a 'before'

This is because you don't know what the surface temp of the coated surface would have been without the

coating (under the same conditions)... the surface temps of those sections might be dramatically lowered

by the coat. Maybe they were 5000deg higher :) Is this very unlikely? Of course. Is it impossible? No.

The hypothesis relies on the assumption that the temperature drop on the surface will be the same

right-to-left without the coat. And that therefore, as the temperature drop is similar to the assumed

conditions with the coat, the coat is useless. This could very well be true - but it also might not be.

Without a 'before' pic, we don't know this.

Please bear in mind, I'm not saying that coatings work (or that they don't). I'm saying that without the control

it's unfair to draw any conclusion (positive or negative).

Regards,

Saliya

Well I am saying that the coating applied in this case didn't work.

I think you are getting a little bit confused between the temperature gradient on the photo and the percieved difference in a like for like test with a coated and an uncoated dump pipe.

What the (Linear) gradient demonstates is that the same amount of heat is being lost per unit length of pipe in both the coated and uncoated sections. That being so the only conclusion is that the ceramic coating is having no effect on the heat loss from the pipe ie it is not working as an effective insulator. You don't actually need a before and after test to prove the point....

Well I am saying that the coating applied in this case didn't work.

What the (Linear) gradient demonstates is that the same amount of heat is being lost per unit length of pipe in both the coated and uncoated sections. That being so the only conclusion is that the ceramic coating is having no effect on the heat loss from the pipe ie it is not working as an effective insulator. You don't actually need a before and after test to prove the point....

Like I said, the logic (therefore, the conclusion) is erroneous.

The actual gradient (it's not linear, there's a much faster fall in temps after the coated section, but I digress)

is not as relevant as whether it is the same or different at the same reference points pre/post coating.

If the very RHS of the now-coated pipe was actually 40deg hotter before the coating was applied, would you not

agree that the coating was effective? Without a 'pre' picture, can you say that it wasn't? No.

Regards,

Saliya

The logic is fine.

The gradient is slightly different at the LHS because the pipe is not straight (it is an exhaust pipe after all) What you see in the photo in terms of the slight difference is merely a result of a different (larger) amount of pipe being projected onto the same amount of graph x-axis. Perhaps I should have made this clearer rather than allow people to misinterpret the photo.

For the coating to have any real effect the gradient needs to be SUBSTANTIALLY different, ie much flatter. Which it isn't.

There are two things to consider:

1. To take your example of the pipe being hotter by 40 degrees at the RHS and the same temp at the LHS. An effective insulator would have the high temperature at the motor end maintained across the length of the exhaust pipe and show up as a flat gradient.

2. An effective insulator (applied internally to the pipe as in this case) will reduce the outside temperature of the pipe. You would then expect a step change in external pipe temperature in areas where the coating is not present, ie a hot spot. We get these at work when refractory fails on some of our pressure vessels & reactors (Not nuclear so calm down). Clearly the photo shows it not happening here.

You don't need a before and after photo (although you could do it that way if you didn't mind the tedium). You just need to properly interpret what you have.

I have seen a power increase from thermo wrapping exhaust pipes, more than once

I can also most certainly measure the external heat difference in hundreds of degrees between a wrapped and an unwrapped exhaust pipe.

This test shows that ceramic coating an exhaust makes no difference

Hence wrapping the exhaust pipes is infinitely better than ceramic coating them?

Have I got it right?

:D cheers :)

Edited by Sydneykid
Guest Mashrock

interesting.

in a less technical form

ceramic coating does not hold heat in, or really stop heat comming out?

but that thermo wrap does wonders. and i would dare say the turbo wraps that are also avaliable, which i cant remember who makes them or whatever would be affective also in this aspect?

interesting.

in a less technical form

ceramic coating does not hold heat in, or really stop heat comming out?

but that thermo wrap does wonders. and i would dare say the turbo wraps that are also avaliable, which i cant remember who makes them or whatever would be affective also in this aspect?

Considering they are like 20x the thickness of heat wrap, and made of basically the same stuff I dare say they do. That and I have seen the gains on my mates car :D

But didnt two06l get some of this ceramic type treatment done? I know they got some type of coating done and apparently it worked very effectivly. I had a quick look for the thread but havent found it yet.

Absolutely. The image shows the ceramic coating makes next to no difference. Thermo wrap tape is actually effective. Ugly, messy, but effective.

Plainly, we're going to have to agree to disagree (about the image). If anybody asks, I'm invoking Godwin's Law first :dry:

Regards,

Saliya

Edited by saliya

Here are my thoughts:

1) You cannot draw conclusions from one image. It must be reproducable a number of times under the same conditions.

2) You need to compare the images of a coated / uncoated exhaust since the argument is with vs. without and not half vs other half.

3) You would need to conduct the tests using ceramic coatings from different vendors so as do not introduce bias.

4) and not only that, you would need to test whether coating thickness, or multiple coats makes a difference.

Consider this:

- Insulating pipes to keep heat in has been done effectively for millenia.

- Ceramic has excellent heat insulation properties

I think it really comes down to the different ceramic coatings available, and the thickness at which they become effective. I'm sure there are many inferior products out there and equally as many functional products.

Look for a supplier who can provide scientific facts, not just marketing mumbo jumbo.

:)

Edited by Color_Of_Green

thermo wrap definitly works , it works too well ,in racing cars we have used it on the extractors only last 12 months at best , and exhaust shops round here dont offer any waranty on systems if it is used ,i think it works by creating a buffer of hot air around the out side of the pipe which decreases the amount of temp lost to the engine bay .

To me the flange is creating a restriction before entering a larger pipe which will by nature increase the temp substantually on the right hand side of pic so before i can draw any conclusions i would like to see a before pic . Djr81 you may be correct but with the evidence before us it is unconclusive.

Just my 2 cents . interesting discusion ,thanks.

1) You cannot draw conclusions from one image. It must be reproducable a number of times under the same conditions.

How many would you like? Five, ten, fifty, a hundred? The stuff claims to be a good insulator. The degree of temperature difference over the short length of pipe shows that the coating doesn't work.

2) You need to compare the images of a coated / uncoated exhaust since the argument is with vs. without and not half vs other half.

Why? The claim for the coating is that it is a good insulator. Dumping that amount of heat in that short a pipe shows that it is not effective.

3) You would need to conduct the tests using ceramic coatings from different vendors so as do not introduce bias.

Why? The reason the stuff doesn't work is because of the thickness applied, not because of the properties of the ceramic.

4) and not only that, you would need to test whether coating thickness, or multiple coats makes a difference.

Assuming the coating is homogeneous (If it isn't it will delaminate & fall off) the number of coats is irrelevant.

Ofcourse insulating thickness plays a part. We use 100, 150 & 200mm in heat insulating refractory bricks & castable refractory on pressure vessels & tanks etc. If we could just spray on a few thousand microns of ceramic that is what we would do - & save huge sums of money in the process.

Consider this:

- Insulating pipes to keep heat in has been done effectively for millenia.

- Ceramic has excellent heat insulation properties

Consider this:

Motherhood has been around for even longer.

Motherhood has excellent child rearing benefits.

I raise the two points because they are about as relevant...

I think it really comes down to the different ceramic coatings available, and the thickness at which they become effective. I'm sure there are many inferior products out there and equally as many functional products.

Look for a supplier who can provide scientific facts, not just marketing mumbo jumbo.

Good luck finding a supplier of this stuff that can provide good scientific facts, or any for that matter. You might want to ask what the coefficient of thermal conductivity is. Glass fibre is about 0.035W/mK. This ceramic stuff would have to be orders of magnitude better to work as advertised.

Heat wrap adds another stage in the heat transfer process by creating a layer through which the engergy must pass, ceramic coating is attached to the first stage molecularly and as such must repel the heat by its own physical properties.

I have seen a power increase from thermo wrapping exhaust pipes, more than once

I can also most certainly measure the external heat difference in hundreds of degrees between a wrapped and an unwrapped exhaust pipe.

This test shows that ceramic coating an exhaust makes no difference

Hence wrapping the exhaust pipes is infinitely better than ceramic coating them?

Have I got it right?

:( cheers :D

Gary,

Which parts of the exhaust system do you wrap?

When you wrap a steampipe manifold, does it shorten the life odf the manifold much due to keeping the heat in?

How many would you like? Five, ten, fifty, a hundred? The stuff claims to be a good insulator. The degree of temperature difference over the short length of pipe shows that the coating doesn't work.

Why? The claim for the coating is that it is a good insulator. Dumping that amount of heat in that short a pipe shows that it is not effective.

Why? The reason the stuff doesn't work is because of the thickness applied, not because of the properties of the ceramic.

Assuming the coating is homogeneous (If it isn't it will delaminate & fall off) the number of coats is irrelevant.

Ofcourse insulating thickness plays a part. We use 100, 150 & 200mm in heat insulating refractory bricks & castable refractory on pressure vessels & tanks etc. If we could just spray on a few thousand microns of ceramic that is what we would do - & save huge sums of money in the process.

Consider this:

Motherhood has been around for even longer.

Motherhood has excellent child rearing benefits.

I raise the two points because they are about as relevant...

Good luck finding a supplier of this stuff that can provide good scientific facts, or any for that matter. You might want to ask what the coefficient of thermal conductivity is. Glass fibre is about 0.035W/mK. This ceramic stuff would have to be orders of magnitude better to work as advertised.

The only thing you have proven is that the particular coating that you tested was not effective, not ceramic coating in general.

If a ceramic coating is only rated to 500oC and your gas flow has a temp of 800oC then obviously you wont see any difference. Try a coating thats rated to 3000oC.... then you will see a difference, even if you apply it to half your manifold.

Checkout some results at http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/80038

Enjoy

Edited by Color_Of_Green

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Next on the to-do list was an oil and filter change. Nothing exciting to add here except the oil filter is in a really stupid place (facing the engine mount/subframe/steering rack). GReddy do a relocation kit which puts it towards the gearbox, I would have preferred towards the front but there's obviously a lot more stuff there. Something I'll have to look at for the next service perhaps. First time using Valvoline oil, although I can't see it being any different to most other brands Nice... The oil filter location... At least the subframe wont rust any time soon I picked up a genuine fuel filter, this is part of the fuel pump assembly inside the fuel tank. Access can be found underneath the rear seat, you'll see this triangular cover Remove the 3x plastic 10mm nuts and lift the cover up, pushing the rubber grommet through The yellow fuel line clips push out in opposite directions, remove these completely. The two moulded fuel lines can now pull upwards to disconnect, along with the wire electrical plug. There's 8x 8mm bolts that secure the black retaining ring. The fuel pump assembly is now ready to lift out. Be mindful of the fuel hose on the side, the hose clamp on mine was catching the hose preventing it from lifting up The fuel pump/filter has an upper and lower section held on by 4 pressure clips. These did take a little bit of force, it sounded like the plastic tabs were going to break but they didn't (don't worry!) The lower section helps mount the fuel pump, there's a circular rubber gasket/grommet/seal thing on the bottom where the sock is. Undo the hose clip on the short fuel hose on the side to disconnect it from the 3 way distribution pipe to be able to lift the upper half away. Don't forget to unplug the fuel pump too! There's a few rubber O rings that will need transferring to the new filter housing, I show these in the video at the bottom of this write up. Reassembly is the reverse Here's a photo of the new filter installed, you'll be able to see where the tabs are more clearing against the yellow OEM plastic Once the assembly is re-installed, I turned the engine over a few times to help build up fuel pressure. I did panic when the car stopped turning over but I could hear the fuel pump making a noise. It eventually started and has been fine since. Found my 'lucky' coin underneath the rear seat too The Youtube video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLJ65pmQt44&t=6s
    • It was picked up on the MOT/Inspection that the offside front wheel bearing had excessive play along with the ball joint. It made sense to do both sides so I sourced a pair of spare IS200 hubs to do the swap. Unfortunately I don't have any photos of the strip down but here's a quick run down. On the back of the hub is a large circular dust cover, using a flat head screw driver and a mallet I prised it off. Underneath will reveal a 32mm hub nut (impact gun recommended). With the hub nut removed the ABS ring can be removed (I ended up using a magnetic pick up tool to help). Next up is to remove the stub axle, this was a little trickier due to limited tools. I tried a 3 leg puller but the gap between the hub and stub axle wasn't enough for the legs to get in and under. Next option was a lump hammer and someone pulling the stub axle at the same time. After a few heavy hits it released. The lower bearing race had seized itself onto the stub axle, which was fine because I was replacing them anyway. With the upper bearing race removed and the grease cleaned off they looked like this The left one looked pristine inside but gave us the most trouble. The right one had some surface rust but came apart in a single hit, figure that out?! I got a local garage to press the new wheel bearings in, reassemble was the opposite and didn't take long at all. Removing the hub itself was simple. Starting with removing the brake caliper, 2x 14mm bolts for the caliper slider and 2x 19mm? for the carrier > hub bolts. I used a cable tie to secure the caliper to the upper arm so it was out of the way, there's a 10mm bolt securing the ABS sensor on. With the brake disc removed from the hub next are the three castle nuts for the upper and lower ball joints and track rod end. Two of these had their own R clip and one split pin. A few hits with the hammer and they're released (I left the castle nuts on by a couple of turns), the track rod ends gave me the most grief and I may have nipped the boots (oops). Fitting is the reversal and is very quick and easy to do. The lower ball joints are held onto the hub by 2x 17mm bolts. The castle nut did increase in socket size to 22mm from memory (this may vary from supplier) The two front tyres weren't in great condition, so I had those replaced with some budget tyres for the time being. I'll be replacing the wheels and tyres in the future, this was to get me on the road without the worry of the police hassling me.
    • Yep, the closest base tune available was for the GTT, I went with that and made all the logical changes I could find to convert it to Naturally Aspirated. It will rev fine in Neutral to redline but it will be cutting nearly 50% fuel the whole way.  If I let it tune the fuel map to start with that much less fuel it wont run right and has a hard time applying corrections.  These 50% cuts are with a fuel map already about half of what the GTT tune had.  I was having a whole lot of bogging when applying any throttle but seem to have fixed that for no load situations with very aggressive transient throttle settings. I made the corrections to my injectors with data I found for them online, FBCJC100 flowing 306cc.  I'll have to look to see if I can find the Cam section. I have the Bosch 4.9 from Haltech. My manifold pressure when watching it live is always in -5.9 psi/inHg
    • Hi My Tokico BM50 Brake master cylinder has a leak from the hole between the two outlets (M10x1) for brake pipes, I have attached a photo. Can anyone tell me what that hole is and what has failed to allow brake fluid to escape from it, I have looked on line and asked questions on UK forums but can not find the answer, if anyone can enlighten me I would be most grateful.
    • It will be a software setting. I don't believe many on here ever used AEM. And they're now a discontinued product,that's really hard to find any easy answers on. If it were Link or Haltech, someone would be able to just send you a ECU file though.
×
×
  • Create New...